Tipos de infiltraciones

Qualitative Design and Approach

The purpose of this study was to explore what the guarantor’s employees and management required for new account advisors by conducting open-ended interviews with the guarantor’s employees. Through narrative data collection, I found out what management and employees required and recommended. The guiding research questions were as follows:

Grand tour question: What do the guarantor’s employees and management require for new account advisors?

Subquestion 1: What training do new hires need to become account advisors? Subquestion 2: What training methods should be employed to develop account advisors?

To answer the research questions, I conducted a qualitative and bounded case study. I reviewed the new hire training performed for the guarantor. I used a case study because a case study this research design focuses on a single case (Elman, Gerring, & Mahoney, 2016). Using a case study also allowed for multiple data sources for understanding the training set up in a designated space. A former guarantor was the case for this study.

The case study design was and is used to investigate a physical structure or setting (Parker, 2016). A case study should be used when it is unclear whether understanding one case will promote understanding of other cases. Researchers conducting an intrinsic case study may identify cause and effect relationships and focus on programs (Gass, Gough, Armas, & Dolcino, 2016). An intrinsic case study was used to assess a nonprofit and its

employee activities because the research design explores the case or organization itself (Crawford, 2016). The research design should be connected to the research questions and the research questions called for the intrinsic case study design. The case study model was most appropriate because it allowed sufficient flexibility to explore and identify the best possible employee training for the audience. Using a case study can allow for multiple data sources for understanding the training set up in a designated space.

Of the major qualitative designs, I could have chosen grounded theory,

phenomenological, ethnography, historical, or case study. Grounded theory is only used when the theory is created after research and analysis (Engward, 2013). I rejected grounded theory is rejected because no new theory will be created by investigating a guarantor’s training. Likewise, a researcher incorporating phenomenological research focuses on a phenomenon and will use interviews and focus groups to gather data (Liu & Xu, 2017). However, phenomenological research would have required prolonged

engagement in the field. Researchers using ethnography focus on race and ethnicity no matter what else the research is about (Howard, Thompson, Nash, & Rodriguez, 2016). But, race and ethnicity were not relevant to a case study regarding a guarantor becoming a third-party servicer. Historical research was rejected because my research was not focused on social artifacts (Horsford & D’Amico, 2015). The context for this study was the case, and that was a present-day guarantor. The case study design was appropriate and practical.

Participants

Participants were limited to the guarantor’s employees. Only the guarantor’s employees could talk about past training and learning at the guarantor. The sample was purposive, and participation was voluntary. Purposive sampling flows from what constitutes a representative sample (Vehovar, Toepoel, & Steinmetz, 2016). All interviews were conducted and recorded with willing participants.

The guarantor’s sample was the call center (the products and services

department), compliance department, executive staff members, and the IT department. Ultimately, I interviewed the chief compliance officer, all account advisors, and key members of the executive staff. One support staff member (two clerical employees who retrieve transcripts) agreed to be interviewed. The administrator, a former manager who enters potential students into Banner software for the online university and communicates with potential students via e-mail, enthusiastically volunteered. No IT staff members (four employees) participated. Of these four executive staff members, three (the director, the director of education services, and the bookkeeper) agreed to participate. I wanted the executive staff members to participate because they played a vital role in repurposing the guarantor.

Because the guarantor has fewer than 20 employees, including management and advisors, each employee who wanted to be interviewed could be if he or she desired to be interviewed. The sample was purposive because, even if participation was voluntary, the invitees were current employees of the guarantor who had a professional and personal stake in the guarantor’s training. Purposive sampling was employed because the sample

consisted of individuals involved in a certain process (Yamin-Ali, 2016). The goal was to interview at least eight willing employees who would reflect a good cross-section of the guarantor’s employees from different departments, with different ages and backgrounds, expertise, length of employment, and other distinctive characteristics. There was nothing random about the participant choices, and the case study employee interview questions were about account advisor training. Only current employees of the guarantor understood the interview questions because they understood past training at the guarantor and knew about the guarantor’s transition to third-party servicer.

Participant Demographic Information

By September of 2017, eight female employees and one male employee of the guarantor (see Table 1) agreed to participate in the case study. Participant 1, Charlotte was a female manager and was over 60 years old at the time of this study. Charlotte has been with the guarantor for nearly 2 decades. Jane, participant 2, had been in

management for a decade and was over 50-years-old. Participant 3, Samantha, has

performed mostly clerical work and was an advisor in her 40s. Participant 4, Thelma, was a female employee in her 30s who had performed clerical tasks for the guarantor, and was working on the support staff at the time of the study. Barbara, participant 5, was the newest employee, having come to the guarantor in 2016 to sell the services the guarantor now offers. Barbara was an experienced manager, and she was over 35-years-old.

Participant 6, Jill, had been a bookkeeper for the guarantor for over a decade and was 40 years old. Participant 7, Valarie, has worked for the guarantor for nearly a decade, and she is in her 30s. Participant 8, Malcolm has been an advisor for nearly a decade, and is

in his 60s. Participant 9, Carrie, is an executive with the guarantor and is over 60-years- old. Carrie has worked for the guarantor for nearly 20 years. Of the nine employees, four members of management (all female managers), the other three account advisors (two females and one male), a bookkeeper (female), and a member of the support staff (female) agreed to participate in my case study. The only other male account advisor, besides me, agreed to participate. The age range was striking in that two had just turned 30 years old at the time of the study and three were over 60 years old. All participants, save for one, had been employed at the guarantor for nearly a decade or more.

Table 1

Participants

Participants Age in years Experience Gender

Charlotte Jane Samantha Thelma Barbara Jill Valarie Malcolm Carrie 65 60 45 30 35 45 30 65 60 Manager, 15 years Administrator, 15 years Advisor, 10 years Support Staff, 10 years Executive, 2 years Bookkeeper, 10 years Advisor, 9 years Advisor, 9 years Executive, 20 years Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Male Female

Role of the Researcher

I have been an employee of the guarantor since October 13, 2008, and I am a Walden University student researcher in the Richard W. Riley College of Education and Leadership. Because I had no authority over my fellow employees, I could conduct a case study without conflict of interest or numerous ethical complications. As a guarantor employee, I could talk with each employee and I could access the training material discussed in the case study on each business day. Each employee could give informed consent to me after reading and signing the informed consent form. Each employee who agreed to participate was informed there would be no financial incentives or promotions tied in with case study participation.

During the case study interviews, I only asked professional development

questions about the training received by the employee. I did not ask personal questions. I informed each participant that I would repeat a question if it was not understood and that I would suspend any interview at the interviewee’s request. I explained to participants that I understood that none of my case study recommendations, and there would be major ones, had to be implemented. Management only gave permission for training to be

investigated.

Rights of the Participants and the Organization

Prior to petitioning Walden’s institutional review board (IRB), I made a formal request to the guarantor’s management to secure permission to interview willing employees and managers regarding account advisor training. In fact, I initiated office e- mail correspondence as early as August of 2016 when I asked for permission to fully

pursue the study (chief compliance officer, personal communication, August 21, 2016). I continued the e-mail correspondence again in May of 2017 with the chief compliance officer regarding my program progress and my asking for case study participants later in the year in August or September. While no official interview dates could be provided until I received permission from the IRB, the compliance officer wanted to share more information regarding my project with the director (chief compliance officer, personal communication, May 30, 2017). I could guarantee I would be sensitive to privacy and business needs. I advised there would be disruption but that would only affect volunteers.

I also asked for management’s permission to bring audio recording equipment onto the premises. I made a request for an available office to be used for the duration of the interviews. I promised no data would be mishandled or compromised while on the guarantor’s premises or while in the presence of an employee of the guarantor. Note that only employees with a key fob device have access to the premises.

I made assurances that the identities of participants would be kept confidential during and after the interviews. I knew I needed to create safeguards. Any rules and regulations regarding research with human subjects were adhered to throughout. All sound recordings were uploaded into my personal computer and stored in OneDrive. I promised that I would be the only one to transcribe the collected data. I would create pseudonyms, I tried to keep physical documents to a minimum, and I acted to protect participant confidentiality. Pseudonyms have been noted to protect identities and

typed up in MS Word and saved to OneDrive. The findings could be easily aligned with the problem and research questions.

Approval from Walden’s IRB was sought in advance of any interviews with employees of the guarantor. The IRB approved my study in early August of 2017.

Walden University’s approval number for my study was 07-17-170499958, and it expires on July 16, 2018. On July 18, 2017, I arranged for an appointment with the director and the chief compliance officer, the director wanted to see the letter of cooperation and consent form (director, personal communication, July 18, 2017). I made assurances to each participant that the name of the organization and participants would be kept confidential. I promised that information gathered will not be identifiable as being from the person who provided it. I would also make sure FERPA privacy guidelines regarding education records would be followed because of the organization’s clients.

After I received IRB approval, I received permission from the guarantor’s director

to collect data during a period from September 8ththrough September 22nd (2017). To

collect data, I asked voluntary interviewees my 14 interview questions. I also received permission from the director to bring and use my own personal computer, recording equipment and interview questions to collect data from an unused office at the guarantor. Upon receiving the director’s permission, I posted my case study invitation on Thursday, August 27, 2017 (see Appendix B), in the guarantor’s breakrooms so that employees of the guarantor would be officially notified that I am an account advisor and Walden student researcher who would like to interview each willing employee regarding past training content and methods and that employee input would be valuable. The training

study was explained to each employee, so each could give informed consent. The most efficient way to gather necessary data was through a face-to-face interview. The interviews were conducted with the employees who elected to participate.

Lastly, I worked out interview appointment times for minimal disruption to business activities. Each employee or manager interested in being interviewed was accommodated for the most convenient appointment time. Each potential participant was informed that a face-to-face interview could be up to 60 minutes long.

Data Collection

I already had a working relationship with the guarantor employee sample. Case study researchers frequently choose interviews as the primary data collection instrument and that is what I chose. Each participant would provide details and information on what training proved most effective during the participant’s time at the guarantor.

My interview questions were researcher produced, and my questions were inspired by other researchers in adult education and reviewed for effectiveness and alignment with my research questions with my committee, two university research reviewers, and an adult education professor. I noted asking an employee how he or she was and would like to be trained produced data in prior studies (Becker & Bish, 2017).

I showed up at my workplace on my days off (Friday) to interview participants during September. I made myself available on the Friday before data collection began to answer any questions or address any concerns a volunteer may have about the interview. I made sure each participant was comfortable about answering training questions before having to go through with the interview. My consent form featured sample questions and

the process of how an answered interview question becomes analyzed and written-up and published. My aim was to be accommodating while collecting the necessary data. I asked co-workers and managers, who volunteered to be interviewed, 14 carefully crafted questions designed to tell how participants learned and how they would appreciate learning opportunities to be presented in the future. I learned quickly that my questions were very direct, and I received pointed and easy-to-understand responses from

participants. By interviewing, I gave each interviewee a chance to give solid input and voice opinions on what each liked about past training. Also, my questions could be easily remembered by the participant, I believe, so each could concentrate on his or her answer. My creating my own research and interview questions proved practical and doing so ensured I covered all necessary data.

I knew that during analysis, I would need to use the guarantor’s past training material as appropriate to explain data collected in the interviews. I found that past training material provided historical information during analysis. The participants did not mention all material. FSA, created by the U.S. Department of Education for financial aid professionals, was never mentioned by interviewees in the interviews. All interviewees discussed NASFAA, the benefits of the client taking an active role in training advisors for an assignment, and current Intranet databases. Access to prior training material and e- mails would prove helpful when corroborating the findings.

I was told by respondents that to ensure relevant training material, the client or the guarantor’s management must provide an updatable database of frequently asked

employee input, not my input, and bias was nullified. The interest in assisting in

employee training was purely an academic exercise and management can decide what to do with the training input. By updatable, I meant that each time a question was asked no one knew the answer to, and the answer was learned, then the answer was documented. The online college and a recent community college client both now have knowledge bases that are easier to edit and check. Also, for the online college’s live chat clients, I cut and pasted and shared general information e-mails. Several co-workers and managers advised how the material is valuable only if referred to and updated frequently.

Given the small sample, the general uniformity of answers on several key issues and questions, I identified data saturation even before analysis. Predicting saturation can involve objective models, but there would be a point where the new input would not change the overall data collection (Gholami et al., 2017). And I noted that

accommodating another participant would not change the study findings. Because all were notified that the period for collection was fixed and was ending on September 22, 2017, I did not need to cancel participant interviews informing saturation had been met.

Data Analysis Results

The data analysis consisted of thematic coding of interview transcripts to identify key repeated phrases. The interview data were manually transcribed, and then thematic coding was used. The data were coded for detectable themes (Vaughn & Turner, 2016). I used MS Word’s comments to manually code the data. I would read through a transcript, then I would read for salient or repeated words and phrases. Thematic coding consists of coding or labels, categories or patterns emerging from the codes created, and then

identifying the larger categories as themes (Urquhart, 2013). Content analysis was employed to ensure that possible themes found in coding were interpreted correctly. Lastly, triangulation corroborated themes found in thematic coding and content analysis by examining in relation to related data including, training material, office e-mail reminders, and Intranet databases.

I noted numerous codes (see Table 2). Patterns or categories emerged. Table 2

Thematic Categories and Codes

Categories and codes Participatory training Shadowing endorsed (6/9) Role-plating endorsed (8/9) One-on-one (3/9) Figure-as-you-go (7) I learn hands-on (7) I learned by doing (o) I learned on the job (7) I dive-in. (1)

Take initiative (1) Note-taking (1) Training sessions (9)

Offer all training methods (4) Training should be ongoing (3) Training employees to mentor (1)

Advisor must be trainable and flexible (2) Multi-task (1)

Role-playing helps advisors understand what it was it like to make and take calls (8) NASFAA information not retained (9) NASFAA information if used each day (9) Training material should be visual (1) Step-by-step manuals (2)

Customer service

Advisor should have customer service skills (9)

Clients No disadvantages to client’s training advisors (3) Advantages of client’s training outnumber disadvantages (9)

The client may go too fast (3)

A client will teach how advisors will represent the client (2)

Need new clients and projects (2)

Precise training (1)

Clients know the regulations they face (2)

Advisors represent clients (3)

Clients communicate their expectations (5)

Q & A (9) Clarification (9) Client-dependent (2) Understand client goals (2) Someone to answer

Customer service training (9) Communication skills (9) Professional speaking voice (9) Conversation (3)

Comfortable speaking (1) Listening skills (3) Friendly calls (1)

Communicate accurate information (5) Communicate the same way (2)

Customer service, communications, and call center skills are required (5)

Professional speaking voice is required (3) advisor teaches (1)

Call center is an extension of the college (1) Customer service training (9)

Advisor can give the caller the resources (1) Intranet

Offer training material online (9) PDFs (4)

Webinars (3)

PowerPoint slides, webinars are valuable if revisited, updated, or are updatable (7)

Information should be sent via e-mail (1) Accessible information (9)

Access data (5)

Need a centralized source of information (3)

Learning curve

Federal regulations (2) Education is about access and retention (2)

FDCPA (2)

Student loan knowledge (2) Consistency (2)

Knowledge of higher education (9)

Communication standards (2)

Temporary employee would be trained too long (9) Too much knowledge would have to be learned quickly (5)

Unscripted (1)

Correct information (5) Education (9)

Experience

New hires should have experience in speaking with students concerning a variety of issues ranging from student loan debt, how to apply for admissions, or how to apply for financial aid. (1)

Temporary employees should not be hired (8/9) Call center (9)

Resolving needs (3) Credentials would help (9) Debt management (9) Call center experience with student loans (9)